RPMs

RPMs

[Sage Weil]

For v0.52 we built some RPMs for the first time.  The release machinery 
here is brand new (thanks, Gary!), so if you run into problems (or don't!) 
with the repos as they are currently set up, let us know.

We started with CentOS6/RHEL6 and Fedora 17 for x86_64.  Please let us 
know what other distributions/architectures you are interested in.

Thanks!
sage

Re: RPMs

[Wido den Hollander]

On 09/27/2012 10:47 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> For v0.52 we built some RPMs for the first time.  The release machinery
> here is brand new (thanks, Gary!), so if you run into problems (or don't!)
> with the repos as they are currently set up, let us know.
>

The link in the docs is dead: ceph.com/docs/master/install/rpm/

su -c ‘rpm -Uvh http://ceph.com/rpms/el6/x86_64/ceph-release-1-0.noarch.rpm‘

The correct RPM URL is: 
http://ceph.com/rpms/el6/x86_64/ceph-release-1-0.el6.noarch.rpm

Same goes for the FC17.

After fixing that I tried to install Ceph on CentOS 6.3 with:

$ yum install ceph

That resulted in:

--> Running transaction check
---> Package ceph.x86_64 0:0.52-6.el6 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) for package: 
ceph-0.52-6.el6.x86_64
---> Package libcephfs1.x86_64 0:0.52-6.el6 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) for package: 
libcephfs1-0.52-6.el6.x86_64
---> Package librados2.x86_64 0:0.52-6.el6 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) for package: 
librados2-0.52-6.el6.x86_64
---> Package librbd1.x86_64 0:0.52-6.el6 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) for package: 
librbd1-0.52-6.el6.x86_64
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: libcephfs1-0.52-6.el6.x86_64 (ceph)
            Requires: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit)
Error: Package: ceph-0.52-6.el6.x86_64 (ceph)
            Requires: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit)
Error: Package: librados2-0.52-6.el6.x86_64 (ceph)
            Requires: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit)
Error: Package: librbd1-0.52-6.el6.x86_64 (ceph)
            Requires: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit)
  You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
  You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest

This should be part of the cryptopp package I think? But this package 
isn't available on my CentOS machine.

Any suggestions?

Wido

> We started with CentOS6/RHEL6 and Fedora 17 for x86_64.  Please let us
> know what other distributions/architectures you are interested in.
>
> Thanks!
> sage
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: RPMs

[Sage Weil]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 3355 bytes --]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Marino Pascual wrote:
> Add the EPEL repo and you can find it there.
> su -c 'rpm -Uvhhttp://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/6/i386/epel-release-6-7.noarch.r
> pm'

Gary, we should probably build these with --with-nss --without-cryptopp 
passed to configure, since libnss3 is in the base distribution and 
libcrypo++ is not.  That's what we're doing now for debian and ubuntu.

sage

> 
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>       On 09/27/2012 10:47 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>             For v0.52 we built some RPMs for the first time.
>              The release machinery
>             here is brand new (thanks, Gary!), so if you run
>             into problems (or don't!)
>             with the repos as they are currently set up, let us
>             know.
> 
> 
> The link in the docs is dead: ceph.com/docs/master/install/rpm/
> 
> su -c ?rpm -Uvh
> http://ceph.com/rpms/el6/x86_64/ceph-release-1-0.noarch.rpm?
> 
> The correct RPM URL is:
> http://ceph.com/rpms/el6/x86_64/ceph-release-1-0.el6.noarch.rpm
> 
> Same goes for the FC17.
> 
> After fixing that I tried to install Ceph on CentOS 6.3 with:
> 
> $ yum install ceph
> 
> That resulted in:
> 
> --> Running transaction check
> ---> Package ceph.x86_64 0:0.52-6.el6 will be installed
> --> Processing Dependency: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) for package:
> ceph-0.52-6.el6.x86_64
> ---> Package libcephfs1.x86_64 0:0.52-6.el6 will be installed
> --> Processing Dependency: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) for package:
> libcephfs1-0.52-6.el6.x86_64
> ---> Package librados2.x86_64 0:0.52-6.el6 will be installed
> --> Processing Dependency: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) for package:
> librados2-0.52-6.el6.x86_64
> ---> Package librbd1.x86_64 0:0.52-6.el6 will be installed
> --> Processing Dependency: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) for package:
> librbd1-0.52-6.el6.x86_64
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> Error: Package: libcephfs1-0.52-6.el6.x86_64 (ceph)
>            Requires: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit)
> Error: Package: ceph-0.52-6.el6.x86_64 (ceph)
>            Requires: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit)
> Error: Package: librados2-0.52-6.el6.x86_64 (ceph)
>            Requires: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit)
> Error: Package: librbd1-0.52-6.el6.x86_64 (ceph)
>            Requires: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit)
>  You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
>  You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
> 
> This should be part of the cryptopp package I think? But this package
> isn't available on my CentOS machine.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> Wido
> 
>       We started with CentOS6/RHEL6 and Fedora 17 for x86_64.
>        Please let us
>       know what other distributions/architectures you are
>       interested in.
> 
>       Thanks!
>       sage
> 
>       --
>       To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>       ceph-devel" in
>       the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>       More majordomo info at
>        http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel"
> in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: RPMs

[Gary Lowell]

The ceph 0.52 rpm packages have been rebuilt without the libcryptopp dependency.

Let me know if there are any further issues, or suggestions for improvements.

Cheers,
Gary


On Sep 27, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Sage Weil wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Marino Pascual wrote:
>> Add the EPEL repo and you can find it there.
>> su -c 'rpm -Uvhhttp://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/6/i386/epel-release-6-7.noarch.r
>> pm'
> 
> Gary, we should probably build these with --with-nss --without-cryptopp 
> passed to configure, since libnss3 is in the base distribution and 
> libcrypo++ is not.  That's what we're doing now for debian and ubuntu.
> 
> sage
> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>      On 09/27/2012 10:47 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>            For v0.52 we built some RPMs for the first time.
>>             The release machinery
>>            here is brand new (thanks, Gary!), so if you run
>>            into problems (or don't!)
>>            with the repos as they are currently set up, let us
>>            know.
>> 
>> 
>> The link in the docs is dead: ceph.com/docs/master/install/rpm/
>> 
>> su -c ?rpm -Uvh
>> http://ceph.com/rpms/el6/x86_64/ceph-release-1-0.noarch.rpm?
>> 
>> The correct RPM URL is:
>> http://ceph.com/rpms/el6/x86_64/ceph-release-1-0.el6.noarch.rpm
>> 
>> Same goes for the FC17.
>> 
>> After fixing that I tried to install Ceph on CentOS 6.3 with:
>> 
>> $ yum install ceph
>> 
>> That resulted in:
>> 
>> --> Running transaction check
>> ---> Package ceph.x86_64 0:0.52-6.el6 will be installed
>> --> Processing Dependency: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) for package:
>> ceph-0.52-6.el6.x86_64
>> ---> Package libcephfs1.x86_64 0:0.52-6.el6 will be installed
>> --> Processing Dependency: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) for package:
>> libcephfs1-0.52-6.el6.x86_64
>> ---> Package librados2.x86_64 0:0.52-6.el6 will be installed
>> --> Processing Dependency: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) for package:
>> librados2-0.52-6.el6.x86_64
>> ---> Package librbd1.x86_64 0:0.52-6.el6 will be installed
>> --> Processing Dependency: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) for package:
>> librbd1-0.52-6.el6.x86_64
>> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
>> Error: Package: libcephfs1-0.52-6.el6.x86_64 (ceph)
>>            Requires: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit)
>> Error: Package: ceph-0.52-6.el6.x86_64 (ceph)
>>            Requires: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit)
>> Error: Package: librados2-0.52-6.el6.x86_64 (ceph)
>>            Requires: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit)
>> Error: Package: librbd1-0.52-6.el6.x86_64 (ceph)
>>            Requires: libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit)
>>  You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
>>  You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
>> 
>> This should be part of the cryptopp package I think? But this package
>> isn't available on my CentOS machine.
>> 
>> Any suggestions?
>> 
>> Wido
>> 
>>      We started with CentOS6/RHEL6 and Fedora 17 for x86_64.
>>       Please let us
>>      know what other distributions/architectures you are
>>      interested in.
>> 
>>      Thanks!
>>      sage
>> 
>>      --
>>      To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>>      ceph-devel" in
>>      the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>      More majordomo info at
>>       http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> 
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel"
>> in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> 
>> 
>> 

RPMS

[Alexander Amelkin]

Hi all!

I have just noticed that we use a wrong unit name for revolutions per 
minute.
The unit we use is called RPMS, which renders to "Revolution Per MinuteS".
The term RPM is already plural in nature and doesn't need the 'S' suffix.

I believe it needs to be renamed to just 'RPM', what do you think?

The unit is used very widely, so a lot of files in openbmc project
and a number of other project will need to be updated.

Do you think an issue on github is needed to capture this?

Thanks.

Alexander.

Re: RPMS

[Patrick Williams]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1759 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:08:06AM +0300, Alexander Amelkin wrote:
> Hi all!
> 
> I have just noticed that we use a wrong unit name for revolutions per 
> minute.
> The unit we use is called RPMS, which renders to "Revolution Per MinuteS".
> The term RPM is already plural in nature and doesn't need the 'S' suffix.

I think you're talking about the dbus interface [1]?

The units in that interface are all in their plural form.  I don't
recall why we decided to do that originally.

> I believe it needs to be renamed to just 'RPM', what do you think?

In many cases of pluralized acronyms the 's' is moved to the end even
though it adds ambiguity as to which underlying word is pluralized.  I
think this is an artifact of spoken English where almost all plural
forms end with an 's' so it is natural to add them to acronyms.

The Cambridge dictionary indicates that either RPM or RPMs would be a
valid plural form [2].  

Interestingly, CFM is arguably both the singular and plural form because
the 'f' can be 'foot' or 'feet'.

> The unit is used very widely, so a lot of files in openbmc project
> and a number of other project will need to be updated.


We did make a minor mistake in that it should be 'RPMs' and not 'RPMS',
but I don't really see that as high-value work to fix at this point.  If
someone wants to go make that change across all the impacted
repositories, I'd certainly merge it in PDI.  If anyone feels strongly
about making it 'RPM' instead at the same time, I'd be fine with that as
well.

1. https://github.com/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-interfaces/blob/master/xyz/openbmc_project/Sensor/Value.interface.yaml#L55
2. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rpm
-- 
Patrick Williams

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: RPMS

[Alexander Amelkin]

03.03.2021 16:31, Patrick Williams пишет:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:08:06AM +0300, Alexander Amelkin wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I have just noticed that we use a wrong unit name for revolutions per
>> minute.
>> The unit we use is called RPMS, which renders to "Revolution Per MinuteS".
>> The term RPM is already plural in nature and doesn't need the 'S' suffix.
> I think you're talking about the dbus interface [1]?

Exactly.

>
> The units in that interface are all in their plural form.  I don't
> recall why we decided to do that originally.

That's right, they are. What I'm talking about is that "RPMS" is, so to 
say, double-plural
because it is already "revolutionS per minute" to which an extra S is 
added.

>> I believe it needs to be renamed to just 'RPM', what do you think?
> In many cases of pluralized acronyms the 's' is moved to the end even
> though it adds ambiguity as to which underlying word is pluralized.  I
> think this is an artifact of spoken English where almost all plural
> forms end with an 's' so it is natural to add them to acronyms.
>
> The Cambridge dictionary indicates that either RPM or RPMs would be a
> valid plural form [2].

Ok, if Cambridge dictionary says so, who am I to argue,
but it makes me, as an engineer, feel uncomfortable. :)

> Interestingly, CFM is arguably both the singular and plural form because
> the 'f' can be 'foot' or 'feet'.

I don't think it is valid to say "cubic foot per minute". A foot (a 
mile, a revolution) is by definition just a single foot (mile, revolution).
It can't be per anything. So it's either "cubic foot" (entity) or "cubic 
fEEt per minute" (rate of change of the amount of the entity).

You don't say "mile per hour", do you? Well, at least I've never seen 
neither "MPHs", nor "MPGs". On the other hand, English is not my mother 
tongue.

>
>> The unit is used very widely, so a lot of files in openbmc project
>> and a number of other project will need to be updated.
>
> We did make a minor mistake in that it should be 'RPMs' and not 'RPMS',
> but I don't really see that as high-value work to fix at this point.  If
> someone wants to go make that change across all the impacted
> repositories, I'd certainly merge it in PDI.  If anyone feels strongly
> about making it 'RPM' instead at the same time, I'd be fine with that as
> well.

Ok. Noted. Thanks. Will think about it. Just needed a confirmation that 
the work, should I decide to do it, won't be in vain.

>
> 1. https://github.com/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-interfaces/blob/master/xyz/openbmc_project/Sensor/Value.interface.yaml#L55
> 2. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rpm

WBR, Alexander.

RPMs

[Anna G. Zapata]

I need more information on RPMs.  I know there are many security updates
every week.  However, I am running out of disk space on my linux box and
can't get all those RPM updates on there.  Do I need all of them?  How do I
know what I need and what I don't?

Thanks!

Anna G. Zapata - GSEC, MCIS
University of Denver
University Technology Services - Network Security
(303) 871-2009 (phone)
(303) 871-4135 (fax)
azapata@du.edu (email)


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: RPMs

[Ray Olszewski]

At 09:10 AM 6/16/2003 -0600, Anna G. Zapata wrote:
>I need more information on RPMs.  I know there are many security updates
>every week.  However, I am running out of disk space on my linux box and
>can't get all those RPM updates on there.  Do I need all of them?  How do I
>know what I need and what I don't?

The RPM package format is used by many distributions, and security update 
policies are distro specific. The only good general answer is to subscribe 
to the security list for your distro, and do what it says. Of course, some 
RPM updates are bugfixes that are not security related, and you might care 
about getting them too.



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: RPMs

[Stephen Samuel]

It's not clear from your email whether or not you know this, but -- once
you install an RPM, you do NOT need to keep the .rpm file arond any more.
other than .newrpm and .oldrpm configfile backups, RPM updates should not
occupy that much space on your system.

Also: you only need to install updates for RPMs that you already have
installed.  If you don't have xyz-1.0.rpm, then there's no reason to
install the xyz-1.2.rpm security update for it.

I have some scripts to help automate that process for you if you'd like.


Anna G. Zapata wrote:
> I need more information on RPMs.  I know there are many security updates
> every week.  However, I am running out of disk space on my linux box and
> can't get all those RPM updates on there.  Do I need all of them?  How do I
> know what I need and what I don't?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Anna G. Zapata - GSEC, MCIS
> University of Denver
> University Technology Services - Network Security
> (303) 871-2009 (phone)
> (303) 871-4135 (fax)
> azapata@du.edu (email)


-- 
Stephen Samuel +1(604)876-0426                samuel@bcgreen.com
		   http://www.bcgreen.com/~samuel/
    Powerful committed communication. Transformation touching
        the jewel within each person and bring it to life.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs